Analysis: For Israel, An Imperfect Deal

For Israel, the U.N. cease-fire deal is far from perfect. A U.N. force deploying in south Lebanon as part of the truce will have trouble keeping Hezbollah at bay for long or prevent the Iranian-supplied guerrillas from rearming, critics said, pointing to past failures of international peacekeepers.

The U.N. terms will buy temporary calm, but make the next war between Israel and Tehran's proxy army inevitable, former Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom and some military analysts warned.

"It begs the question, `What was it all for?'" Shalom said, reflecting a growing chorus of criticism.

Israel had little choice but to go along with the U.S.-backed compromise, after its vaunted army failed to subdue Hezbollah in more than a month of fighting. The guerrillas took heavy blows and suffered scores of casualties, but kept raining rockets on northern Israel throughout the war and clung to positions near Israel's border.

In a race against a looming cease-fire, Israeli troops moved deeper into Lebanon on Saturday to try to capture all territory south of the Litani River, the area that is to be free of Hezbollah. Helicopters ferried hundreds of soldiers into the war zone, in the biggest military airlift in 33 years.

Israeli officials explained that the troops were trying to pave the way for the deployment of 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers and 15,000 Lebanese forces between the border and the Litani. However, some said the last-minute push was of questionable military value and unnecessarily endangered soldiers.

At least seven soldiers were killed Saturday, the first day of the wider ground war, and an Israeli helicopter was shot down.

On paper, a combined force of 30,000 patrolling south Lebanon appeared an impressive achievement for Israel, which has long demanded that the Lebanese government take control of that area.

However, the Lebanese army — composed of up to 50 percent of Shiite Muslims, the same faith as Hezbollah's fighters — will at best have a symbolic role, and at worst be sympathetic to the guerrillas, said Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli military chief of planning.

If challenged by Hezbollah gunmen, the army would likely fold, Brom said. "That's why a multinational force is needed," he said.

However, international observers in the area have proven ineffective in the past. The 2,000 U.N. peacekeepers, known as UNIFIL, who have patrolled south Lebanon since 1978 are no match for Hezbollah, which built its state-within-a-state and acquired sophisticated weapons from Iran without interference.

The new beefed-up U.N. force was given a wider mandate, including permission to use "forceful means" if challenged by the guerrillas.

That wording is still vague, Israeli TV commentator Ehud Yaari said. "When you take into account the past record of UN forces ... it's hard to be hopeful," he said.

Alvaro de Soto, a U.N. special envoy to the Middle East, said much of the criticism of UNIFIL was unfair, since its mandate had been limited. Even so, he said the force repeatedly had defused minor confrontations.

The U.N. resolution's language on a weapons embargo also is problematic, analysts said. The truce deal bars the "sales or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon, except as authorized by its government" — of which Hezbollah is a member. An embargo also would be difficult to enforce on the ground, Yaari said.

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said his guerrillas would abide by the cease-fire once Israeli forces leave, but he expressed reservations about the deal.

The Islamic militant group wants a release of Lebanese prisoners in Israel and a return of Chebaa Farms, a disputed border region held by Israel. If progress is not made on those provisions, the guerrillas may be less willing to cooperate with the forces in the south.

Iran can easily reactivate Hezbollah for its own political needs, particularly if it were to be attacked by the West over its nuclear weapons ambitions, Israeli counterterrorism expert Boaz Ganor said.

Shalom, of the right-wing Likud Party, agreed that another war is inevitable. "This was just the preview for the main movie," he said of the conflict that began July 12 when Hezbollah crossed the border and captured two Israeli soldiers.

"They (Hezbollah) will now rebuild themselves. We could then see long-range missiles, perhaps with non-conventional warheads," warned Shalom.

Israeli leaders defended the deal against growing skepticism — and got a little help from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The deal, she told Israel TV in a telephone interview, "really does enhance Israel's security."

Defense Minister Amir Peretz acknowledged that Israel would have preferred a NATO-led force, rather than U.N. troops, but emphasized the expanded size and mandate of the peacekeepers.

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Israel couldn't expect to get everything it wanted. "If we opposed the U.N. resolution, the world would have turned against us," he cautioned.

Karin Laub is AP news editor in Jerusalem and has covered the region since 1987.

Israel had little choice but to go along with the U.S.-backed compromise, after its vaunted army failed to subdue Hezbollah in more than a month of fighting.

A pity Israel didn't use that more-than-a-month to send in ground troops immediately and destroy Hezbollah.

The US also seems to be faulted by some military experts for not sending enough troops into Iraq in 2003 to establish order and destroy the likes of the al-Sadr brigades.

The need to appease the Europeans, the American MSM and leftists seems to be crippling the war on terror.

"got a little help from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The deal, she told Israel TV in a telephone interview, "really does enhance Israel's security."

Man what has she been smoking?

Unless there is another plan B in the works, which would explain why this was dropped like that, I am very worried for the future of this world.

Liberals think the US should rebuild Lebanon to win friends among Islamofascists. There's no limit to their stupidity.

Olmert's got some explaining to do about how Israel got nothing for their efforts. At the very least they should have told the UN that there wouldn't be any cease-fire prior to the release of the kidnapped soldiers, period.

I think that Bush was very disappointed with the Israel's Prime Ministers lack of resolve to disarm Hiz b'Allah (Party of Allah, and so decided to accept this so-called "peace treaty" as a way of telling him that he better $hit or get off the pot. I doubt very much he will be re-elected. This would be a very good time for Binyamin Netanyahu to make his bid for Prime Minister because the people of Israel know his stance on military action against all terrorists organizations.

I think this is a war directed by a higher power than mortals. I believe this is being allowed to happen to fulfill Ezekiel's prophecy in chapter 38-39. Here's a link that gives further info about this.

Ezekiel's Prophecy (Please be patient as it downloads. It will take about 20 seconds if you have Cable, longer if you have DSL or worse.)

They should have gone in with special forces (boots on the ground)at the beginning. You can't fight guerrillas with tanks and planes. Also, they should have attacked Syria
to stop them from supplying Hezballa.

If we opposed the U.N. resolution, the world would have turned against us,"

Get a clue dude, the world turned against Israel decades ago.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.